Apple and Google Bolster Bid on Kodak Patents to $500 Million

rated by 0 users
This post has 11 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,485
Points 1,196,280
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Sat, Dec 8 2012 11:09 AM
There's no love lost between Google and Apple. Steve Jobs once vowed to destroy Android even if it meant bankrupting Apple, and given his competitive nature, there's every reason to believe he fully meant it. More recently, Apple raked one of Google's hardware partners (Samsung) over the coals by winning a $1 billion patent verdict.

Despite all that, the two companies have come together to jointly bid more than $500 million to buy Kodak patents out of bankruptcy, Bloomberg reports.

Kodak

It seems strange that the two would set aside their differences, but it's not unusual in instances like this. By partnering up to buy these patents, both sides protect themselves from potential litigation, which as the Samsung verdict proves can be quite costly.

As for Kodak, the company fell on hard times and had to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy earlier this year. Kodak was ill-prepared for the transition to digital photography, forcing the company to sell off its print film business and shift focus to commercial businesses like printers.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 756
Points 7,645
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Dallas, Tx

This answers quite a bit of questions for me.  In the medical field Kodak printers are still some of the most widely used, I was curious what would happen to support for all of those printers once the company finished their bankruptcy process.  Bad news for Kodak, good news for the mobile market.  Possible digital camera phone in the near future?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 18
Points 90
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Estados Unidos

bad new for kodak :(

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,016
Points 10,970
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Mcallen, Texas
OSunday replied on Sun, Dec 9 2012 1:45 AM

So does this mean that Kodak is going to undergo some sort of ressurection?

Because I thought they were already 6 feet under and gone for good?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,705
Points 104,490
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator

OSunday:
Because I thought they were already 6 feet under and gone for good?

Probably gone, unless they pull a rabbit out of their hats,................(not likely)

This buying and selling of patents has got to stop. All it seems to be doing is providing fuel for further lawsuits.

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 756
Points 7,645
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Dallas, Tx

OSunday:

So does this mean that Kodak is going to undergo some sort of ressurection?

Because I thought they were already 6 feet under and gone for good?

Kodak has a solid printer division.  They actually invented some of the first wet film processors, and did a very good transition over to digital.  They just bombed on the consumer side for digital cameras, plus with the drop in DSLR prices, people can afford some to pay a few more dollars and pick up a really decent camera.  I don't think they're done for, just don't expect to see any kodak's camera's.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,705
Points 104,490
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator

Who knows how much of Kodak will survive bankruptcy?

I did buy a Kodak printer a year and a half ago. It used too much ink, too fast for me to keep it.

Print quality was OK, but nothing fantastic. My Son's Cannon is a great printer,...........

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,016
Points 10,970
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Mcallen, Texas
OSunday replied on Sun, Dec 9 2012 9:35 PM

I've heard the same thing about Canon printers quality.
And I know the qualities of their cameras is superb too, a couple of film competitions I worked in were filmed with a T3i and I've done some professional projects with the same camera. 

I haven't heard anything about Kodak at all or even seen it anywhere other than when I was younger and my mom was always using their disposables.
I haven't seen their printers anywhere other than a few discrete pro quality places like print shops but even then it's none of the chain stores.


I'm pretty sure they're gone for good, but I don't understand what the point is of anyone wanting to buy their patents are... 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,705
Points 104,490
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Mon, Dec 10 2012 10:55 AM

OSunday:

I'm pretty sure they're gone for good, but I don't understand what the point is of anyone wanting to buy their patents are... 

Patents provide the means to lock technology to your own company's advantage. Some patents are never enforced, but if they are sold off, they can suddenly become an issue for competitors. They fuel court cases.

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 756
Points 7,645
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Dallas, Tx
Dorkstar replied on Mon, Dec 10 2012 11:26 AM

realneil:

OSunday:

I'm pretty sure they're gone for good, but I don't understand what the point is of anyone wanting to buy their patents are... 

Patents provide the means to lock technology to your own company's advantage. Some patents are never enforced, but if they are sold off, they can suddenly become an issue for competitors. They fuel court cases.

Translation :  Companies buy these patents to sue other companies that use technology similar or like their newly purchased patents.  AKA, they make a few dollars by suing the crap out of everyone and earning royalties.   

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,705
Points 104,490
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Mon, Dec 10 2012 1:58 PM

Dorkstar:
Translation :

Patents need to be restricted to the original owners. Licensing the technology to others is cool, but selling patents is not.

They should have a shorter shelf life too. Technology marches on extremely fast these days, and existing patents slow real advances down too often.

Patents are outdated and need to be fixed.

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 756
Points 7,645
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Dallas, Tx
Dorkstar replied on Mon, Dec 10 2012 2:01 PM

realneil:

Dorkstar:
Translation :

Patents need to be restricted to the original owners. Licensing the technology to others is cool, but selling patents is not.

They should have a shorter shelf life too. Technology marches on extremely fast these days, and existing patents slow real advances down too often.

Patents are outdated and need to be fixed.

Oh, I completely agree.  I really feel that our current patent system is hindering our advancement rather than helping.  I understand why they were invented, but lets face it, the only people who have really benefited from patents is either a big company making money off someone using a similar idea, or the little guy by selling his patent to a big company so they can make money off of it.  In the end, the only people patents are protecting is big business, and that's just not right.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS